SM,

Can you gather together some links detailing the 500 deaths you suggested can be attributed solely to the Labour Govt? Just interested, and it's always good to be able to check facts.

Meanwhile, here are links to some almost compulsory reading for everyone from a wide variety of sources. Again, its a good thing to know what we're talking about before we talk about it.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/australia-fear-boat-people-asylum-seekers

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/refugee-obsession-out-of-proportion-20120214-1t49w.html

http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boat-arrivals-stats.pdf

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/sixth-boat-arrival-in-nine-days-20120515-1yo41.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/siev-j15.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/siev-j16.shtml

http://sievx.com/FAQ.shtml

For the record, neither the Malaysia Solution nor the Pacific Solution are solutions of any sort to what is viewed as a world problem. Both parties are wrong and neither 'solution' will work. More importantly, as neither party seems willing to compromise, the discussion of floating either idea is a moot one.

My 13 year old summed it up nicely today when he asked: "Would you prefer to go Left, where nothing's right, or Right, where nothing's left?"

From the mouths of babes, eh?

*Belly* both you and *Lexi* have fundamental conflicts of interest in that one cannot be both pro the Rights of the Child and support either of the mainstream parties and or the mainstream churches.

..

To give the military/navy something practical to do, get them out there on the border. It's really very simple.

..

For the hardliners/rednecks, my interpretation of what you want is this. 1. Withdraw from the Asylum Seeker Convention. 2. Re-excise ChristMass Island from the immigration zone. 3. Issue temporary protection visas. 4. Vote for a party that will remove Human Rights guarantees from the immigration act (and you may care to note that the noalition currently refuses to do this, and in the absence of legal guarantees from Malaysia such activity has been struck down by the High Court. 5. Stash all Asylum Seeker's except for the wealthy and the brilliant wherever, be it say Manus or Nauru.

..

For those who are Pro Human Rights and Pro the Rights of the Child - Vote Green.

..

For those who wish to lock up children without charge or trial and keep them indefinitely in circumstances known to produce adverse medical outcomes, vote for the noalition or the alp.

For those that want to see more deaths at sea.

Vote---- The Greens

GR and Dream On,

Why don't we just pick up seekers of asylum in Australia from everywhere in the world until there are none left? Expecting them to safely make their own way here is unreasonable and exposes us to claims of lack of due care.

Meanwhile, we can work it from the other end so there will never be any asylum seekers anywhere and the need to pick anybody up at all will disappear.

You guys make my eyes water.

Apologies for the hyperbole in my last post (except to GR and dream On who thought I was serious)

I wonder how many know that the onshore and offshore components of Australia’s refugee program are numerically linked, meaning every time an onshore applicant is granted a protection visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program. Greens want this to cease thereby making the overall intake limitless but the major parties will not support this radical line, and nor should they.

According to *Christine Milne* this morning we are talking about less than 13,000 people per year, which is only a very small portion of the overall immigration intake.

Further, I believe that the *Greens* have long advocated for a pro-active stance which would include having patrols in the "active" areas. Thus, to claim that a vote for the *Greens* is pro deaths at sea is simply a baseless one.

..

It raises the question, why not simply prioritise legitimate Asylum Seekers for the purposes of immigration?

One of the reasons I believe that they are not prioritised is because where Australia once promoted its "White Australia" policy, now it promotes what amounts to a "Wealthy & Educated" Australia policy.

Of course, as I believe that the majority of Asylum Seekers that arrive by boats are neither wealthy nor educated (though I do not know that for sure) they are simply unwanted and made to suffer as a warning to others in similar circumstances because the majority of australians simply do not want to pay for them to become educated and self sufficient as indicated by them voting for the mainstream politicians.

Of course, that oughtn't surprise anyone as they don't even properly house, medicate and educate Australians as a whole, so why on earth would anyone expect them to want to assist outsiders?

As I recently said in another thread, *abbott & geelar* may as well go on international t.v. with a mentally shattered minor up ended and suspended from their left hands shouting:

" ... See, this is what we will do to your children if you dare to come here by boat seeking asylum! ... "

" ... We only want you if you have a desirable degree, several million $'s and the willingness to invest! ... "

..

Of course one of the problems with these people is that they insist on this duplicitous charade of pretending to be one thing whilst on camera, whilst in reality, as evidenced by their acts and omissions, they are something very different.